L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Before the fall, people enjoyed their work. Today, many do not.
- Status
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Umm how do you know this? Where did you find this information?
G
GEddie
Guest
We know that biological death existed prior to “the fall.” That is because of all the fossils of animals that never coexisted with human life, yet are dead.
So, presumably, our human bodies, or rather Adam’s natural body, held the same kind of mortal life, and did not change resulting from his sin. Rather, he was banned from the source of continued life. He was already mortal, else that would not have killed him.
Because he had a mortal body, he probably did catch cold (easy when you’re naked in the north wind
or stub his toes occasionally. He had the same body as ours.
As to work, only Adam and Eve lived in Eden, and nothing is said about how much they enjoyed their work.
I think we need to distinguish between “work” and “toil.” Work is the changing of nature to create what was not there before; toil is the repetitive effort that now accompanies work and has negative effects on the body (symbolized by sweat on the forehead–overheated head).
A&E were placed to tend the garden. Even now, many garden for fun. To them it is not toil, although it is a work; it makes things grow where otherwise they would not.
It was the “fall” and the subsequent weakening of our bodies, that turned work into toil.
ICXC NIKA
So, presumably, our human bodies, or rather Adam’s natural body, held the same kind of mortal life, and did not change resulting from his sin. Rather, he was banned from the source of continued life. He was already mortal, else that would not have killed him.
Because he had a mortal body, he probably did catch cold (easy when you’re naked in the north wind
or stub his toes occasionally. He had the same body as ours.As to work, only Adam and Eve lived in Eden, and nothing is said about how much they enjoyed their work.
I think we need to distinguish between “work” and “toil.” Work is the changing of nature to create what was not there before; toil is the repetitive effort that now accompanies work and has negative effects on the body (symbolized by sweat on the forehead–overheated head).
A&E were placed to tend the garden. Even now, many garden for fun. To them it is not toil, although it is a work; it makes things grow where otherwise they would not.
It was the “fall” and the subsequent weakening of our bodies, that turned work into toil.
ICXC NIKA
C
clem456
Guest
as an aside, I sent you a pm and was wondering if you found it.Yes we do know.
Cue the dinosaurs
But in all seriousness, yes we do. We have the fossil record.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The Bible - Genesis.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the sin of Adam adversely affected him and his descendants in body and soul. So this is Catholic dogma.
As Pope Francis says: “The story of Adam and Eve, the rebellion against God described in the Book of Genesis, uses a richly imaginative language to explain something that actually happened at the origins of mankind.” [The Name of God is Mercy]
C
cfauster
Guest
No doubt, something actually happened at the origins of mankind.
No doubt, that something included rebellion against God.
No doubt, that rebellion had lasting consequences for all subsequent generations of humans.
As I understand it, Catholic doctrine (most of which is shared by Lutherans such as I, by the way) says that the first humans had preternatural gifts beyond their natural biological endowments, but that those gifts were lost due to their rebellion against God.
Lacking those preternatural gifts, natural biological processes such as sickness and death affect humans as they do the other animals.
Eternal life of the sort Jesus Christ (the “first fruits”) has would have been (without sin) an immediate culmination of each earthly human life, with the transition to that life happening smoothly, uninterrupted by death. Jesus took upon Himself the consequences of our sin, made that pioneering transition via agonizing suffering and death, and thereby created a path for us to follow Him into eternal life.
I got the above-stated understanding largely from inters.org/death
No doubt, that something included rebellion against God.
No doubt, that rebellion had lasting consequences for all subsequent generations of humans.
As I understand it, Catholic doctrine (most of which is shared by Lutherans such as I, by the way) says that the first humans had preternatural gifts beyond their natural biological endowments, but that those gifts were lost due to their rebellion against God.
Lacking those preternatural gifts, natural biological processes such as sickness and death affect humans as they do the other animals.
Eternal life of the sort Jesus Christ (the “first fruits”) has would have been (without sin) an immediate culmination of each earthly human life, with the transition to that life happening smoothly, uninterrupted by death. Jesus took upon Himself the consequences of our sin, made that pioneering transition via agonizing suffering and death, and thereby created a path for us to follow Him into eternal life.
I got the above-stated understanding largely from inters.org/death
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
How do you get that Catholic doctrine was started by Lutherans? Martin Luther was a Catholic monk, as I’m sure you know, and most Catholic doctrine was in place by the time he was born.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
From a philosophical perspective we are composed of different parts. And anything composed of parts has the potential to degrade or come apart or even die. Thus, animals and man always had the potential to die even before the fall. I think though that Adam and Eve were created outside the garden like the animals.(This could also allow for an evolution of the body). However,they were placed in the garden after in which they would be protected by grace from ilness and death. However, when they lost that protective grace, when they were evicted from the garden, they also lost that grace that protected them from death of the body. Even though Adam still lived 900 years he ultimately died as a result.
V
Vico
Guest
They had the three preternatural gifts.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Or the story of the Garden of Eden was used to describe things ancient man didn’t understand. The origin of man is complex and we have evolved over many years.
C
cfauster
Guest
Indeed. As Ron Conte noted in Post #46, Pope Francis reminds us that “The story of Adam and Eve … uses a richly imaginative language.” Story language is a more timeless way to convey truths across centuries than is flat factual narrative.
The truths being conveyed by the story - including original rebellion against God - “actually happened at the origins of mankind.”
I recommend the essay “Creation” by Luke Timothy Johnson at
asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF3-07Johnson.pdf
N
NM505StKate
Guest
But what evidence can you provide that shows a “original rebellion against god”?
C
cfauster
Guest
Great question!
Assuming there’s abundant evidence of current rebellion against God by people today, indeed by itself that does not constitute sufficient evidence for the original rebellion, or “Fall.”
First, I’m not Catholic, I’m Lutheran. Among Lutherans there’s a wide spectrum of views. Some believe in an historical Fall, others do not. I think many who doubt that a Fall happened do so because they doubt there was original righteousness from which to fall. Instead, they think it more likely that, from the very beginning, all humans have behaved badly.
For me, I tend to think of the Fall not as a transition from righteousness to sinfulness, but from innocence to sinfulness, with the innocence being more “invincible ignorance” of the kind non-human animals have (we don’t blame animals for acting according to their natures). When that transition happened (perhaps quite gradually), eventually there were choices to be made once humans with the capacity to choose first emerged.
Here’s a view that I think has merit:
biologos.org/uploads/projects/murphy_scholarly_essay.pdf
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Why not just move past the sin concept. We are animals after all.
C
cfauster
Guest
No doubt we are animals, and no doubt that is significant regarding this issue (of righteousness, sinfulness, etc.).
But of course, there are differences among animal species, both quantitative (differences that are matters of degree, so to speak) and qualitative.
Whether one uses language and concepts of sin, or other language/concepts, I’m not sure we can move past the reality that humans are morally culpable in ways that other animals are not.
Likely you would agree, of course, so I’m not assuming you meant to deny this when you said “move past the sin concept.”
Could you say a bit more about what you mean? Thanks.
D
davidv
Guest
Because, ignoring a problem does not make it go away.
Biologists classify us as such. Why should I trust their classification. Do they know about rational souls?
C
cfauster
Guest
I would phrase it something like this: Even if one can trust biologists’ classifications of organisms according to their biology, might there be other characteristics on which to base additional classifications? Indeed humans are fully animals, yet isn’t there more one can also say about humans, without in any way denying that we are animals too?
R
Rau
Guest
It is always insufficient, in the context of discussions prevalent on CAF, to refer to mankind as just “animals”. For that is to focus on what we have in common with the animals and to utterly overlook what distinguishes us. “Animals” is an entirely inadequate and even misleading description of us in this context.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
C1S, ref 35 and also 171 of “Why am I gay”, psychology is contagious.
- Status